SOMAWWA Vs. GURUSIDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the original plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 12-6-1975 passed by the Civil Judge, Bijapur in RA No. 82 of 1974 on his file, allowing the appeal of the defendant on reversing the judgment .and decree dated 20-3-1974 passed by the Munsiff, Basavana Bagewadi, in OS No. 3 of 1971 on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for. The [earned Civil Judge, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as not tenable.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted the suit on the averments that she purchased the suit property in the year 1940 and took possession of the suit property which is a house and that she stayed in the suit property till the year 1959 along with her minor sons and thereafter since portions of the house collapsed she moved to the house belonging to her sons. Thereafter, when her fisrt son attained majority he started managing the properties including her own. He was paying tax to the Village Panchayat and after the death of her first son when she enquired in the Village Panchayat, she came to know that the name of her son, Siddaramappa was entered in the Village Panchayat records for the purpose of payment of taxes. Immediately thereafter she made an application to the Village Panchayat that the house belonged to her and that her name should be entered in the Village Panchayat records. But the Village Panchayat Chairman did not oblige her. Hence, she was obliged 'to institute the present suit at OS No. 3 of 1971 on the file of the Munsiff, Basavana Bagewadi for declaration of her title and for possession. In the meanwhile possession of the house was taken by the defendant as the purchaser from her son Siddaramappa, the sale deed having been executed by her son Siddaramappa in the year 1962 as per Ext. P 2.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant. According to him, the house belonged to Siddaramappa. His name was entered in the Panchayat records. There was a partition of the family properties in the year 1958 and in that partition Siddaramappa was allotted the suit house and he sold it to the defendant as per Ext. P 2. Hence, he resisted the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the suit property.